Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

I mentioned why in the edit, but you seem to have been typing this for a while; the difference is that the DMCA was passed in the time between Sega V. Accolade and the current mess with Geohot and Sony. The DMCA did away with quite a few consumer protections, one of which is the ability to get around copy protection in order to make a personal copy or jail break a device. The weird thing here is that it hasn't been applied as written, as the case which allows people to jail break their iPhone demonstrated. US Copyright law is a huge mess these days.

I opened a big can of worms in this thread, haha. I am responding to 2-3 people on different items in this particular case, haha. My love of debate may have gotten the better of me. But, I know Copyright laws in general are a turbid mess. If anything, the iDevice case demonstrates how little any of the involved parties actually keep track of the various things they are going to court over. I digress, though, it's been fun. I need to shower and get ready for work.

 

[Weaver]

Can tinkering enable software piracy?
Sure.

But allowing someone use of a car also "enables" them to run people over.
It shouldn't be illegal to do something that allows for the possibility of illegal activity. Just having an internet connection should thus be illegal as it gives us the potential to pirate things.

If 50% of all cars sold ended up being used to intentionally run people over, I'm pretty sure you would be singing a different tune. Hell, even if only 10% of all cars sold ended up being used to intentionally run people over we would be seeing major changes.

What percentage of people who crack their PS3s will use the crack to pirate games? Don't low ball your guesstimate just for the sake of making your argument work. A fair, reasonable estimate.

I would say about 80 - 90% if not more.

I've no idea the number.
Does everyone do it for piracy? I put homebrew on my wii just because I was bored, I didn't pirate a thing. Hell, I don't even play it.

 

[beniki]

Who the hell is making these "press releases"?

Since when did Anonymous need to send "press releases"?

When in the hell did Anonymous need to explain anything it's done?

What happened to you Anonymous... you used to be cool. Now you're all like, normal, and stuff. Boring.

I am extremely disappoint

 

[Illyasviel]

Can tinkering enable software piracy?
Sure.

But allowing someone use of a car also "enables" them to run people over.
It shouldn't be illegal to do something that allows for the possibility of illegal activity. Just having an internet connection should thus be illegal as it gives us the potential to pirate things.

If 50% of all cars sold ended up being used to intentionally run people over, I'm pretty sure you would be singing a different tune. Hell, even if only 10% of all cars sold ended up being used to intentionally run people over we would be seeing major changes.

What percentage of people who crack their PS3s will use the crack to pirate games? Don't low ball your guesstimate just for the sake of making your argument work. A fair, reasonable estimate.

I would say about 80 - 90% if not more.

I've no idea the number.
Does everyone do it for piracy? I put homebrew on my wii just because I was bored, I didn't pirate a thing. Hell, I don't even play it.

But would you agree that if the main reason an item is acquired is to specifically commit a crime, for example if half of the cars sold ended up being used to run at least one person over, something needs to be done about it? Lower speed limits? Maybe restrict or even ban cars?

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip/quote]

snip/quote]

Hmm, I stand corrected about his reverse engineering.

Also, it would seem to me that the legal precedent set in 1992 could still stand. His particular set of coding allowed people to install unlicensed software onto the system, and it didn't even try to pass as licensed. That basically coincides with most arguments of today, that no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony.

You must enjoy standing in that bucket of correction. Take a look at the EULA that comes with Windows7:

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software; or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services.

LoL, my favorite bit is how you had no idea about it till I called you on it. But, that is how we learn. I can admit when I'm wrong, though that just means I have to edit my arguments from here on in. It's all good. I had fun with this back and forth, but I need to get ready for work. Cheers and thanks for the mentally stimulating debate. I look forward to our next back and forth.

Edit: LoL, two corrections do not constitute a bucket full. Nice try though. Just because I now officially have more important things to do doesn't mean I concede. It just means that I gotsta get paid! I could literally do this all day, and have a much better time than going to work.

 

[JDKJ]

This is really the most ridiculous argument Ive ever hear. The "I bought it legally so I can do what I want with it" argument is extremely shallow thinking. I buy a knife legally, does that mean I'm allowed to stab people in my own home cuz I bought that too so its mine and had my own set of rules completely separate from the rest of world right?

Seriously, your the one tampering with legally protected hardware, use the shit as its meant to be used or pay the consequences. I hope these hackers get the full force of the law, people like Geohot or whatever the hell his name is are the kind of arrogant bastards that think they can get away with anything and are the ones that help ruin things for everyone.

What do these people think will come of this if they win? Hackers will run rampant and gaming companies will end up going out of business because they cant compete with the hackers who would then have no legal restrictions such as sony has and the hackers dont have to worry as much about making money or employing thousands of people

Get your head out of your ass and think about the bigger picture hackers! Its not an issue of you doing it to your own system and then not playing online Im ok with that that doesnt harm anyone, its when you harm a companies profits that it becomes illegal, thats stealing and company ruining behavior. the world doesnt revolve around you or your defense mechanisms which in this case seem to be classic justification and regression.

Rant over

Because hacking a console is clearly equivalent to murdering someone with a knife, and not, say, making a nice sheath for it. Right.

More so than making a sheath for it considering both are illegal

But it's not illegal, simply in violation of a contract that is itself of questionable legality; what Geohot did was find out how to modify the software. Making a sheath for a knife has a lot more in common with that than stabbing someone with a knife does. Stabbing would be an accurate comparison if, say, someone found a way to violate the anti-nuclear weapons clause in the iTunes EULA. If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's actually a clause in the iTunes EULA that says you can't use the software to make nuclear weapons. How one would do that, I have no idea, but it is in the document.

The point is that there IS a contract for it which if you violate a contract thats illegal. You sign the contract when you purchase their system and go online, he "violated" the contract and that means he should deal with the consequences.

Im not saying he should be "punished" per say just that he should compensate Sony for their losses occurred which in this case seem to be reputation/legal fees/whatever else that I'm sure they kept track of. To "punish" Geohot would be to make him pay more than that of which he is responsible for.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-contract/ in case you were wondering about a breach of contract law

You'd be right, if the contract was actually signed at purchase. The legal gray area here is that you don't sign it at purchase; the contract of sale here is "I give you money, you give me the product, it's mine." The EULA is an illegal attempt to add stipulations to a contract that has already been agreed upon, which is why they never hold up outside the US, and even in the US, where the law is pretty much written by big business, they often get thrown out. There is such a thing as an invalid or unconscionable contract, and such a contract cannot legally be enforced.

EULAs, like many of forms of contracts, don't require signatures. Ninety-nine percent of them are either require "clicking through" or they imply consent to their terms by use of the software. Both forms of consent (i.e., clicking through and implied consent) are generally legal forms of acceptance. And, while not an entirely well-settled area of law, EULAs don't often get thrown out in court as you claim they do. They're more likely -- or, at least, just as likely -- to be upheld than they aren't.

But most EULAs are buried on a slip of paper that you can't read until after you've already made the purchase; surely it has to be made clear at the time of purchase that the EULA is a part of the contract of sale? Because otherwise, they're changing the contract after its already been agreed upon, which isn't kosher. I know that EULAs get held up as often as they get thrown out in the US, but that's just the thing; the case law is highly inconsistent on the matter, and it hasn't been decided yet whether or not it's definitely legal. Further, most of the cases involve corporate software, in which the EULA really is a part of the contract of sale, and has to be agreed to upon purchase, rather than installation -- games bought through Steam, XBLA, or the PSN are other examples of software in which the EULA is part of the contract of sale. Boxed games and consoles, however, are not.

No. Technically and legally what Sony does is to present the EULA after sale (obviously it's in the box) and then say, in effect, if you want to use this product, then here are the terms to which you must agree. The salient aspect of that is the "if you want to use this product" part. If you don't want to agree to the terms presented, then you don't get to use the product. You then need to take it back to the retailer and seek refund or store credit. But if you do go ahead and use or access the software in the PS3. then you have contractually bound yourself to the terms of Sony's EULA. The choice is yours to make.

How on earth is that legal, though? As you've pointed out already, there's no way to actually return the product after you've paid for it, and further, the product is already yours, as you have already paid for it. How can it possibly be legal for them to add stipulations to the contract of sale after its already been completed?

Because the EULA doesn't take effect when money and product are exchanged. The EULA takes effect when you use the product, the use of the product being what implies consent to the EULA and makes it a binding contract between you and Sony. Technically, if you don't ever use the PS3, then you haven't entered into any agreement with Sony.

And are you telling me that if I purchase a product from a major retailer, I can't take it back and receive either a refund or store credit? They can pull that on the other guy if they think they can get away with it but they ain't pulling that nonsense on me.

Good luck doing that, then. I have a question for you as a lawyer, though: isn't there some sort of ethical conflict with you giving out legal opinions in the manner you're doing it? You don't often see lawyers being this talkative in a situation this unofficial.

Edit: Also, what is your legal specialization? Do you have a particular specialization in contract law, or is it something else? No offense, but I wouldn't want to ask a public defender to draw up a prenup.

I'm giving my unsolicted legal opinion to no one who is my client or a potential client and I'm not holding myself out as an attorney available for hire in so doing. As you yourself note, the situation is "unofficial."

My professional experience involves so-called "complex business litigation" mostly on behalf of Fortune 500-type clients (e.g., Goldman Sachs) with no particular area predominate. It's a mixed bag. Little bit o' antitrust, securities, banking and finance regulation, shareholder suits (defense side), acquisition deals gone sour. Your typical Wall Street-type practice.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip/quote]

snip/quote]

Hmm, I stand corrected about his reverse engineering.

Also, it would seem to me that the legal precedent set in 1992 could still stand. His particular set of coding allowed people to install unlicensed software onto the system, and it didn't even try to pass as licensed. That basically coincides with most arguments of today, that no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony.

You must enjoy standing in that bucket of correction. Take a look at the EULA that comes with Windows7:

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software; or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services.

LoL, my favorite bit is how you had no idea about it till I called you on it. But, that is how we learn. I can admit when I'm wrong, though that just means I have to edit my arguments from here on in. It's all good. I had fun with this back and forth, but I need to get ready for work. Cheers and thanks for the mentally stimulating debate. I look forward to our next back and forth.

Wrong, again. This isn't the first time I've been forced to dissuade a member of the Escapist community that console EULAs aren't much different than PC operating system EULAs by pasting the Windows7 EULA. I can go back to my profile's list of posts, dig it out and re-post it, if you don't believe me. Or, alternatively, you can save me the leg work by visiting my profile and digging it out yourself from my list of posts. There ain't but 800 or so posts. Should be an easy find.

 

[Ishiro32]

Let me just get popcorn and Cola and enjoy the show...

And about discussion. The thing is that sony doesn't want ps3 to be pirated as much as PC. They want to maintain the big profits from consoles. So it kinda makes sense i see why they do this.

But saying that i still thing people who buy electronic device should be able to do with it whatever they want. When you block options just to make more money and maintain monopol, for example block instaling Linux.
Of course this would be mostly used to pirate etc, but we are talking about law, and basic freedoms. I buy device and it's mine, so i should do this whatever i want, when i pirate games i brake the law, not before, not because i want linux on my console. If i own pc i could smash it and wear remains as a hat and Intel Nvidia etc. shouldn't care. The same should goes for consoles... I wish i had hat made of remainings of PS3

 

[Giddi]

Forget the dos, forget the public release, forget the court cases.

The only black and white area of all of this is that if I buy a piece of hardware, it is mine. I reserve the right to do whatever the hell i like with it. I turned my old XBOX "large" into a media player, I've turned many old PCs and laptops into linux servers and firewalls.

Parden my language, but FUCK any company who thinks they have a hold on me after I pay full price on their product. it's now mine. every bit of hardware, every chip, every transistor is now mine. the source code is theirs, but how I use their binary and hardware is up to me.

I don't support piracy.
I don't support attacks on companies.

But damn if I don't feel more on Anon's side than Sony's.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Sony is abusing the legal system you say? Let's commit crimes and illegal activity to show them they they shouldn't commit illegal activity. That's...logical... *sigh*

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Let me just get popcorn and Cola and enjoy the show...

And about discussion. The thing is that sony doesn't want ps3 to be pirated as much as PC. They want to maintain the big profits from consoles. So it kinda makes sense i see why they do this.

But saying that i still thing people who buy electronic device should be able to do with it whatever they want. When you block options just to make more money and maintain monopol, for example block instaling Linux.
Of course this would be mostly used to pirate etc, but we are talking about law, and basic freedoms. I buy device and it's mine, so i should do this whatever i want, when i pirate games i brake the law, not before, not because i want linux on my console. If i own pc i could smash it and wear remains as a hat and Intel Nvidia etc. shouldn't care. The same should goes for consoles... I wish i had hat made of remainings of PS3

Dude, you just made one of those things where you switch one letter and change the entire meaning of a phrase. "Braking the law": 1.) obstruction of justice, 2.) what's going to happen if congress can't get their butts in gear and approve a new budget in the next couple of weeks

 

[Vrach]

Sony is abusing the legal system you say? Let's commit crimes and illegal activity to show them they they shouldn't commit illegal activity. That's...logical... *sigh*

Guy is about to shoot someone? Let's shoot him to show people who like to shoot people they shouldn't shoot people. Yeah, that logic works quite well actually

Also, when you fight against something, playing by the rules is generally the stupid thing to do. And completely ineffective, considering who/what you're fighting will make it a rule you can't fight them, or at least not in any way that is effective. Especially when you're talking odds like giant corporations vs individuals.

 

[Tsaba]

I totally agree
Penny for your thoughts

I'd love to weigh in, but I can't get at YouTube videos during the day. What's the link about?

The Beatles: Revolution
Kinda of saying everyone wants things to change, but, we got to do it the right way, not with violence or destruction of property.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

As much as I usually enjoy Anon's antics, I can't wholly support this. They're essentially saying they're in support of damaging the videogame industry. :/

 

[Giddi]

snip snip etc..

You must enjoy standing in that bucket of correction. Take a look at the EULA that comes with Windows7:

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;

(snip)

I'm not legal expert, but doesn't work around any technical limitations in the software just sound like installing ANY software on Windows 7 which isn't part of windows? you can install software written by a company (or individual) which sits on windows without Micro$oft's express permission, isn't this then against the EULA? or am I being too literal?

 

[Assassin Xaero]

As long as they don't touch my PS3 or anything that affects it, I don't really care what they do.

Technically they have. The firmware updates took away features that the PS3 once supported. It used to be possible to run Linux on the PS3 but that has been changed with their updates. Most people didn't use it but there are people who bought the PS3 over a different game system for that reason.

You misunderstood my post a little. I meant I don't care what Anonymous does as long as my PS3 still works, I already knew that Sony took that away after they had advertised it.

 

[hawkeye52]

Isn't technically what sony did to the PS3's that were originally sold with the advertisement that you can install your own OS onto them and then stripped them of that feature by patching it out technically criminal damage or even theft since its devaluing property and assuming owners rights. It would be like selling a bag with extra large pockets or some other selling point and then coming into your house one day and removing said selling point and claiming that sewing the pockets back on is breaking the contract license.

 

[CSB Fisher]

I thought Anon' was entangled with the big issues, this prooves they are off the right path, they havn't made a good move since they got invloved in the liberation of Eygypt; they decided they wanted the mantle of internet guardian and are flounting their e-peen on behalf of people who don't want their help.

For one, the PS3 is not a PC. They developed tech for this console alone and don't expect it to be integrated anywhere else because of that, plus, it more than likely is written in the T&C that modifying the console is in breach of the contract. If you don't like their rules or don't bother to read them, it's your own fault for getting in trouble.